This matter of time and God's relationship to it appears to be an important and recurring factor during the various Open Theology and predestination vs freewill debates being conducted on this forum.

So, I was thinking we'd have a discussion just about time. Personally, I don't know why something so simple and so basic (in God's Word) should be the subject of so much controversy ... but, there you have it.

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m suggesting we go back to the beginning Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ literally. I believe that everything we need to know about Ã¢â‚¬Å“timeÃ¢â‚¬Â is told to us in Genesis 1 Verse 1.

My favorite Bible teacher, Chuck Missler likes to say that if you have a problem with the first 10 words in the English Bible (KJV) youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll stumble on GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Word in the whole of the rest of the Bible.

Also, one of my favorite Bible commentators, Henry Morris in his New DefenderÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Bible, says that, Ã¢â‚¬Å“One who really believes Genesis 1:1 will have no difficulty believing the rest of Scripture.Ã¢â‚¬Â

So, letÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s do it.

Gen. 1:1 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ In the beginning Ã¢â‚¬Â¦

In the original Hebrew that phrase is represented by the word Bereshit.

Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ God created Ã¢â‚¬Â¦

In the original Hebrew that phrase is represented by the word bara. Then it is followed by the triune descriptive of God, Elohim. Note the plural construction. One God in three persons.

Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ the heavens and the earth.

Again, in the Hebrew, et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.

ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s interesting and instructive that in just this one first verse, the first words given to man by God, we see a triune God creating a triune universe Ã¢â‚¬â€œ In the beginning (time), God (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).

If there is any doubt about this, John brings it home with the first words that he penned in GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Holy Word.

John 1:1-3 Ã¢â‚¬Å“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.Ã¢â‚¬Â

OK. So, just what did God Ã¢â‚¬Å“make?Ã¢â‚¬Â

ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no disputing among reasonable people that God made the heavens and the earth Ã¢â‚¬â€œ in other words, the universe, the universal laws, everything.

The dispute is over time. Did God create time? Did God, indeed, create Ã¢â‚¬Å“the beginning?Ã¢â‚¬Â

Scientists are pretty much all in agreement these days that time has physical properties. It can be shrunk and stretched, changed. It is a Ã¢â‚¬Å“thing.Ã¢â‚¬Â

So, did God create this Ã¢â‚¬Å“thing?Ã¢â‚¬Â Or has this thing existed all along with God, even before the beginning?

Wait a minute! Ã¢â‚¬Å“All things were made by Him.Ã¢â‚¬Â If time has physical properties, it must have been Ã¢â‚¬Å“createdÃ¢â‚¬Â with the Ã¢â‚¬Å“heavens and the earth.Ã¢â‚¬Â By whom? God of course.

Is God subject to His own creation? Even science says that the effect cannot be greater, or above, the cause.

If God created time, then God must have predated time. In which case He is not subject to his own creation, and thus He is outside of time.

In order to refute this, one must parse Ã¢â‚¬Å“In the beginningÃ¢â‚¬Â to mean something totally different than what God has told us in His Word. Try to explain what came before the beginning.

This matter of time and God's relationship to it appears to be an important and recurring factor during the various Open Theology and predestination vs freewill debates being conducted on this forum.

So, I was thinking we'd have a discussion just about time. Personally, I don't know why something so simple and so basic (in God's Word) should be the subject of so much controversy ... but, there you have it.

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m suggesting we go back to the beginning Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ literally. I believe that everything we need to know about Ã¢â‚¬Å“timeÃ¢â‚¬Â is told to us in Genesis 1 Verse 1.

My favorite Bible teacher, Chuck Missler likes to say that if you have a problem with the first 10 words in the English Bible (KJV) youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll stumble on GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Word in the whole of the rest of the Bible.

Also, one of my favorite Bible commentators, Henry Morris in his New DefenderÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Bible, says that, Ã¢â‚¬Å“One who really believes Genesis 1:1 will have no difficulty believing the rest of Scripture.Ã¢â‚¬Â

So, letÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s do it.

Gen. 1:1 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ In the beginning Ã¢â‚¬Â¦

In the original Hebrew that phrase is represented by the word Bereshit.

Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ God created Ã¢â‚¬Â¦

In the original Hebrew that phrase is represented by the word bara. Then it is followed by the triune descriptive of God, Elohim. Note the plural construction. One God in three persons.

Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ the heavens and the earth.

Again, in the Hebrew, et hashamayim ve'et ha'arets.

ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s interesting and instructive that in just this one first verse, the first words given to man by God, we see a triune God creating a triune universe Ã¢â‚¬â€œ In the beginning (time), God (the Father, Son and Holy Spirit) created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).

If there is any doubt about this, John brings it home with the first words that he penned in GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Holy Word.

John 1:1-3 Ã¢â‚¬Å“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.Ã¢â‚¬Â

OK. So, just what did God Ã¢â‚¬Å“make?Ã¢â‚¬Â

ThereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no disputing among reasonable people that God made the heavens and the earth Ã¢â‚¬â€œ in other words, the universe, the universal laws, everything.

The dispute is over time. Did God create time? Did God, indeed, create Ã¢â‚¬Å“the beginning?Ã¢â‚¬Â

Scientists are pretty much all in agreement these days that time has physical properties. It can be shrunk and stretched, changed. It is a Ã¢â‚¬Å“thing.Ã¢â‚¬Â

So, did God create this Ã¢â‚¬Å“thing?Ã¢â‚¬Â Or has this thing existed all along with God, even before the beginning?

Wait a minute! Ã¢â‚¬Å“All things were made by Him.Ã¢â‚¬Â If time has physical properties, it must have been Ã¢â‚¬Å“createdÃ¢â‚¬Â with the Ã¢â‚¬Å“heavens and the earth.Ã¢â‚¬Â By whom? God of course.

Is God subject to His own creation? Even science says that the effect cannot be greater, or above, the cause.

If God created time, then God must have predated time. In which case He is not subject to his own creation, and thus He is outside of time.

In order to refute this, one must parse Ã¢â‚¬Å“In the beginningÃ¢â‚¬Â to mean something totally different than what God has told us in His Word. Try to explain what came before the beginning.

God says that only He came before the beginning.

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m interested in comments.

Dave

I must confess I like your logic. It is very satisfying. On the other hand FresdÃ¢â‚¬â„¢a logic seems to make some important points, I would like to posit the idea that both statements can be true under certain conditions.

Cause does seem to come before an effect an infer a time continuum, Your statement God is outside of time does not mean He does not subject Himself to time from time to time. lol. One of the many criticisms of the God of the old testament is that he was always angry and killing people even though He gave the commandment, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Thou shall not kill.Ã¢â‚¬Â WhatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s up with that? But, the scripture also says God gives to his beloved sleep. The point is when we Ã¢â‚¬Å“killÃ¢â‚¬Â a person we do not have the ability to resurrect them, God does. God is simply putting the to sleep. As for God always existing and being the first cause that makes perfect sense to me.

The scripture that says we reap what we sow infers that one precedes the other in time. In this instance God appears to acknowledge and function within time. As a further example take God blessing us. It occurs usually after we do what He wants, Once again God appears to observe time. When He describes Himself as the Alpha & the OmegaÃ¢â‚¬â€the beginning and the end He acknowledges He is above time without beginning of days.

Scientists are pretty much all in agreement these days that time has physical properties.

So I presume you can provide us with examples of this evidence? If time is not a "thing" as you assume (with no evidence), then your whole argument falls apart. Even if you appeal to "properties" such as time dilation (which is literally in the eyes of the beholder) how does this make "the passing of one moment to the next" a created, physical "thing"? In the beginning Fred Williams created an aquarium and put sand, rocks, and fish in it. The English words are very clear. I did something that had a beginning, but I did not create anything aside from what I said I created (ok, built), an aquarium. Nobody in their right mind would think that "In the Beginning" had any other meaning than the demarcation point for the start of my project. There is nothing in the English, or the Hebrew in the Bible, that even remotely supports that "In the beginning" as meaning anything other than what it says, the start of something. There is nothing to support that "time" itself, the passing of one moment to another, was "created". There is no evidence in any of the rabbinical writings to support such an interpretation. Dave, I hope you at least admit that you are making an ASSUMPTION that time is a physical "thing".

In order to refute this, one must parse Ã¢â‚¬Å“In the beginningÃ¢â‚¬Â to mean something totally different than what God has told us in His Word.

Hmm. Dave, do you really want to go down the path of whose making Ã¢â‚¬Å“In the beginningÃ¢â‚¬Â mean something totally different than what the plain Hebrew states? If need be I'll try to dig up my references for the rabbinical writings. Do you have any evidence from Hebrew scholars that Ã¢â‚¬Å“In the beginningÃ¢â‚¬Â can also mean the creation of time? I suspect all you have is speculation from some very credible, great Christian men. But it still is speculation, an idea, a hypothesis, nothing more.

Try to explain what came before the beginning.

Well, for one the "passing of one moment to the next" (aka time). See Revelation 8:1.

Since the Bible itself is a great place to go for such answers, I'm wondering why no one has yet been willing to tackle the verses I have provided to support my position. I'm just scratching the surface on literally HUNDREDs more verses I can provide that when taken in plain language, shows that the future is not reality until it occurs, that "God-outside-of-time" should go on the scrap heap with all the other false ideas Plato and Aristotle promoted. Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? (1 Cor 1:20)

To summarize:

1) Science has not shown time is "physical".

2) Early rabbinical writings show no concept at all that God created time, or is outside of time.

3) Greek pagan philosophers taught God-outside-of-time. So they were wrong on everything scientific but this?

4) And the final nail in the coffin: The Bible has hundreds of verses that when taken in plain, straightforward language, clearly paint a picture that is completely opposite of "God-outside-of-time." So far no one has been willing to explain the verses I have provided. Are they afraid I will keep score of who is using the plain meaning, and who isn't?

Since the Bible itself is a great place to go for such answers, I'm wondering why no one has yet been willing to tackle the verses I have provided to support my position.

I for one am don't have any problem with your position Fred. In fact I'm glad you are here stirring up the pot a little. These are difficult questions. I am inclined to agree with you although I usually toss these kinds of questions back and forth until I finaly give up from sheer mental exhaustion.

I have an feeling that when we draw things to their logical extremes we wind up tying ourselves in logical knots that nullify the simple truth in scripture.

Our perspective and God's perspective on time is completely different. I think it would be very difficult for a human to pin God's perspective on time. All we know for sure is that he made everything, and he has always been there.

When The Bible says "In the Beginning" I think it is referring to the beginning of the Creation account.

I would like to know if you think time like life has always been a part of God? Or are you saying time does not exist and has no relevance at all? Or somewhere in between"

Mike

Hi Mike,

I'm saying that the progression of one moment to the next has always existed, and always will. I further state that "God-outside-of-time" is an idea that started with Greek pagan philosophy, and it's biggest invasion into scripture occurred with Augustine (arguably the first Calvinist).

Here is another verse to wrestle with:

Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them. - Genesis 2:19.

Does the plain rendering of this scripture support my POV, or God-outside-of-time?

I for one am don't have any problem with your position Fred. In fact I'm glad you are here stirring up the pot a little. These are difficult questions. I am inclined to agree with you although I usually toss these kinds of questions back and forth until I finaly give up from sheer mental exhaustion.

I have an feeling that when we draw things to their logical extremes we wind up tying ourselves in logical knots that nullify the simple truth in scripture.

The thing is, this has relevance because it solves many problems that cause Christians to scratch their heads on 100s of verses, and dismantles certain criticisms non-believers make regarding our logic. Even worse, such a doctrine can lead to bad theologies like Calvinism. IMO Calvinism would have never gotten out of the gate if Augustine did not cater to his Greek pagan roots that taught this concept of God outside of time and God as immutable in every way. God inside-of-time is a death blow to Calvinism.

Note: I know many good Christians who are Calvinists; nevertheless I strongly believe its a satanic doctrine that is not only remarkably illogical and makes Christians look callous and silly, it also makes God look capricious, and it provides a great excuse not to witness. So yes, I do feel this is an important topic.

So I presume you can provide us with examples of this evidence? If time is not a "thing" as you assume (with no evidence), then your whole argument falls apart. Even if you appeal to "properties" such as time dilation (which is literally in the eyes of the beholder) how does this make "the passing of one moment to the next" a created, physical "thing"?

Fred, in all honesty, I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe that you are challenging such a ridiculously obvious assertion.

If IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m reading you right, you are denying a century of relativity theory being propounded and examined by hundreds, if not thousands of scientists. You are throwing quantum physics theory completely out of the window. Scientists these days definitely find Ã¢â‚¬Å“timeÃ¢â‚¬Â to have scientific properties that are intricately tied in with their concept of space and matter. In fact, they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t just talk about time. They call it Ã¢â‚¬Å“space-time,Ã¢â‚¬Â showing how inextricably linked they are.

Am I assuming that time is something that has physical properties? No. Not at all. I am absolutely recognizing what all of science knows, that time is definitely a measurable, predictable, studiable Ã¢â‚¬Å“thing.Ã¢â‚¬Â Without time, much of modern science, particularly cosmology and particle physics, has no basis at all.

Is gravity a Ã¢â‚¬Å“thing?Ã¢â‚¬Â Just because you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t hold a cupful of gravity in your hands doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have scientific properties. Did God create gravity?

Although I can make my case no matter what form Ã¢â‚¬Å“timeÃ¢â‚¬Â takes, because we all know that time is Ã¢â‚¬Å“something,Ã¢â‚¬Â I think what you fear is finding out that time is something that could have been created by God. Thus, your argument is pinned on the hope that it is not. So, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s really your burning issue, not mine.

Finish this sentence: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Scientists now know that the universe is made up of four dimensions Ã¢â‚¬â€œ length, width, height and _ _ _ _.Ã¢â‚¬Â

See, even you recognize the universality of time as one of the measurable properties of the physical universe.

Having said all that, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m going to ask you to stipulate that the form that time takes is secondary to how and when time started. OK?

In the beginning Fred Williams created an aquarium and put sand, rocks, and fish in it. The English words are very clear. I did something that had a beginning, but I did not create anything aside from what I said I created (ok, built), an aquarium. Nobody in their right mind would think that "In the Beginning" had any other meaning than the demarcation point for the start of my project. There is nothing in the English, or the Hebrew in the Bible, that even remotely supports that "In the beginning" as meaning anything other than what it says, the start of something. There is nothing to support that "time" itself, the passing of one moment to another, was "created".

Your aquarium analogy is a good one Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ in my favor. It does your argument more harm than good.

When you built your aquarium Ã¢â‚¬Å“in the beginningÃ¢â‚¬Â you could always sit back and ponder on something you did before that. Right? Did you read a book? Or cook a meal? Then, before that, what did you do? Something else. Right? Then, before you were born, your parents must have done something. Before the Mayflower landed on these shores, there had already been 1,600 years of European history. Before that, Christ walked the earth. Before that Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ well, you get the picture.

Your building an aquarium was not the first Ã¢â‚¬Å“in the beginning.Ã¢â‚¬Â It had prior activity. So, when was the first Ã¢â‚¬Å“in the beginningÃ¢â‚¬Â that had no precedent. If we go back to Genesis, God tells us. DoesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t he?

If you disagree, then tell me what activity occurred before, Ã¢â‚¬Å“In the beginning, God created Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â

There is no evidence in any of the rabbinical writings to support such an interpretation.

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m going to address your rabbinical writings below.

Hmm. Dave, do you really want to go down the path of whose making Ã¢â‚¬Å“In the beginningÃ¢â‚¬Â mean something totally different than what the plain Hebrew states? If need be I'll try to dig up my references for the rabbinical writings. Do you have any evidence from Hebrew scholars that Ã¢â‚¬Å“In the beginningÃ¢â‚¬Â can also mean the creation of time? I suspect all you have is speculation from some very credible, great Christian men. But it still is speculation, an idea, a hypothesis, nothing more.

I see this differently than you, Fred. With having no exposure to your rabbis or Hebrew scholars, I have only GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Word in Genesis to guide my belief. It is your supposition that Ã¢â‚¬Å“In the beginningÃ¢â‚¬Â means something different than the Ã¢â‚¬Å“in the beginningÃ¢â‚¬Â that God meant, and thus the burden of proof is on you to support that.

Ã¢â‚¬Å“In the beginning God createdÃ¢â‚¬Â (Gen 1:1) Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ and, Ã¢â‚¬Å“all things were made by himÃ¢â‚¬Â John 1:3. That is the orthodox biblical view. You are taking the unorthodox view. Unlike you, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have to rely on the extra-biblical writings of rabbinical scholars or pagan philosophers to justify my understanding of GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Word. Again, the burden of proof is on you.

(FredÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s definition of time) Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ Well, for one the "passing of one moment to the next" (aka time). See Revelation 8:1.

Fred. Your definition works in the time domain that is occupied by temporal man. I believe that the crux of our debate is to get you to recognize that God is not bound by manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s world. HeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s atemporal, and outside of our time domain.

Since the Bible itself is a great place to go for such answers, I'm wondering why no one has yet been willing to tackle the verses I have provided to support my position. I'm just scratching the surface on literally HUNDREDs more verses I can provide that when taken in plain language, shows that the future is not reality until it occurs, that "God-outside-of-time" should go on the scrap heap with all the other false ideas Plato and Aristotle promoted. Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? (1 Cor 1:20)

YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re wanting us to put the cart before the horse at this point. What we need to do before we begin parsing Ã¢â‚¬Å“futureÃ¢â‚¬Â verses is determining when and how time began. So, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m recommending we begin at the beginning, and deconstruct Gen. 1:1 until weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re satisfied with the results. I believe that a right understanding of how and when time began will lead to more accurate interpretations of those verses.

To summarize:

1) Science has not shown time is "physical".

2) Early rabbinical writings show no concept at all that God created time, or is outside of time.

3) Greek pagan philosophers taught God-outside-of-time. So they were wrong on everything scientific but this?

4) And the final nail in the coffin: The Bible has hundreds of verses that when taken in plain, straightforward language, clearly paint a picture that is completely opposite of "God-outside-of-time." So far no one has been willing to explain the verses I have provided. Are they afraid I will keep score of who is using the plain meaning, and who isn't?

1) Absolutely wrong. Modern science could not possibly exist without thousands of scientists treating time as if it had physical properties. If you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t stipulate this, then we can end the debate right here.

2) ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s because Gen. 1:1 was so well understood to be taken the way God meant it to be. It would have been overstating the obvious to dwell on it. Also, as I stated earlier I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t rely on extra-biblical writings to interpret GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s first words in the Bible.

3) IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m going to have to insist that you abandon your Ã¢â‚¬Å“pagan philosophersÃ¢â‚¬Â rebuttal. YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve repeatedly taunted me and others here on this forum with that false accusation, and as far as I am concerned it is a debate-ender. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve told you this in the past.

One reason is that it is extremely insulting and beneath you as a Christian to accuse other believers of following pagan thought simply because they disagree with your unorthodox views. Also, keep in mind that whatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s good for the goose is good for the gander. Your obsession with the writings of long-dead philosophers over GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s plain Word seems to occupy and inform your thoughts a whole lot more than those of us who rely solely on GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Word. Is there a problem here?

Another reason is that if we have to throw out all verses in the Bible that some pagan philosophers happened to stumble upon the truth about, then weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d have to throw out much of the book of Isaiah because the false prophet Joseph Smith lifted whole passages from Isaiah when he wrote his Book of Mormon.

Another reason is that even the modern proponent of your Open Theism belief, Gregory Boyd, writes that Ã¢â‚¬Å“the history of orthodox Christian doctrine has always been on the side of classical theism.Ã¢â‚¬Â He also says, Ã¢â‚¬Å“I must concede that the open view has been relatively rare in church history.Ã¢â‚¬Â

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m betting that you havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t done an in-depth formal study of the Greek philosophers, but are merely parroting charges made by other OT proponents. If you were to do such a study, I believe you would find that not only have the Greek philosophers not had much influence on doctrines of GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s true church (possibly with the exception of the Catholic Church), but youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d be shocked to discover that your Open Theism has components that stem from Aristotelian thought. However, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t want to go there, because Ã¢â‚¬Â¦

Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ In no way do I believe that Plato, or Aristotle or any others influenced the first 10 words (in the English Bible) that God gave us to describe the beginning of all things. So, I could care less what they wrote or believed.

4) Fred, your understanding of the verses you would like us to debate is misinformed by your misunderstanding of Gen. 1:1. So, until we put the horse back in front of the cart, there is nothing to be gained by going elsewhere. Remember Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ Ã¢â‚¬Å“If you have a problem with the first 10 words of the Bible, etc.,Ã¢â‚¬Â from my OP.

So, what I am suggesting in order to move this debate along is to work on Gen 1:1 until we are both satisfied with the results. How and when did time begin.

I say that time was created by God when he created Ã¢â‚¬Å“all things.Ã¢â‚¬Â All things. All. (Gen 1:1 & John 1:3)

What does God mean when he says Ã¢â‚¬Å“all?Ã¢â‚¬Â

a. Noneb. A fewc. Somed. Moste. Everything

OK. The Ã¢â‚¬Å“game is afootÃ¢â‚¬Â as Sherlock Holmes likes to say. Present to me a verse you like from GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Word that shows that God did not create all things, and then weÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll go from there.

As you know from my previous debates I don't do sidetracks and rabbit trails, so I'd be happy if we could just stick to Gen 1:1 for now. Others may wish to debate the dead poets with you, but I'll forgo that as irrelevant to our discussion.

Dave

PS: WeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re both busy with work, family, church, etc., so I understand you not being able to respond quickly to a given post. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m certainly willing to grant you all the time you need to respond, as I would wish that you do me the same.

I believe that God Himself exists inside AND outside of time, for He "IS". The "I AM". For He is existing in an eternal state and cannot be bound or limited by time, because He is uncreated and has neither beginning nor end. We exist inside of time, because our lives can be measured from a beginning.

I cannot see it any other way because any other way would mean that God exists moment by moment from a beginning point, and is therefore not existing in an eternal state.

One would have to ask how much time elapsed before God started to make the world? Which would then mean there was time, it was measurable and God had a beginning Himself. This makes no sense to me. I believe that God exists in eternity, but has created a beginning and therefore an end, which is measured in time. I believe that time will give way to eternity when we pass from this life to the next.

Fred, in all honesty, I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe that you are challenging such a ridiculously obvious assertion.

Dave, from the sound of your post, not just this opening line, you are taking this way too personal. As I said last time you complained about this, my reference that god-outside-of-time traces back to Greek pagan philosophy is a point of argument that is NOT a personal slam on your exegesis. I'll pick an analogy regarding another theology that I'm sure you agree with me on. I go to a Lutheran Missouri synod church, but I happen to disagree strongly with replacement theology (church replaced Israel). Just as with the Open View, I present scripture first as an argument against replacement theology. I'll then talk about the motive, or influence, namely Luther's anti-semitism. Now the Lutheran, after wrestling with the scriptural argument, can then tackle the motive argument. The Lutheran has three options, 1) they can dispute my claim that Luther was an anti-Semite (an argument they will lose), 2) they can agree that he was an anti-Semite but chalk off the motive as merely a coincidence, or 3) they can agree with me that his bias helped create the false theological position called replacement theology. Now they can get offended and claim that I am saying they trust Luther more than the Bible, but I never leveled such a charge, since I don't know why they personally believe replacement theology. In most cases I suppose it's their upbringing and education in Lutheran-leaning institutions. But it would never even enter my mind to think they trust man's opinion over the plain teaching of the Bible, since I'm going to agree with them on maybe 90-95% of the rest of scripture (for the record I've never had a Christian defending replacement theology overreact to my claim that the connection to their theology was Luther's anti-Semitism; they simply opted out with option #2).

Now take my reference that god-outside-of-time traces back to Greek pagan philosophy. You have the same three options. You can dispute that the Greeks believed this (a losing proposition), you can chalk it up to coincidence (the most common position), or you can agree the Greeks came up with the idea first and it ended up creating a false theological position. I have presented many scripture that god-outside-of-time is false theology, and then provided an "oh-by-the way the Greeks also believed this theology". Just because you take offense to this for the wrong reasons isn't going to make me stop making this argument.

Now back to the meat of this debate, and something you are more than welcome to take offense to. You are doing the same thing that performedge has done, you are equivocating on what "time" is, and then inevitably erecting its servant strawman against my position. All the while you do this, you spend very little time talking about scripture, in fact NO time trying to refute the scripture I've raised, short of referring to a single verse (Gene 1:1) where the equivocation and strawmen ascend. Meanwhile, you spend a whole lot of time talking about what Chuck Misler, Henry Morris, and scores of scientists believe. One of the things I would want the reader to take note in these debates, is not only who takes the plain meaning of scripture on this topic, but who also spends more time trying to bolster their argument with extra-Biblical sources. (in this case Dave, I am indeed being sharp in my criticism and am slamming your exegesis on Genesis 1 because you have referred to at least three different extra-Biblical sources, I just hope you take it constructively). The only outside source I've raises are the OT rabbis, a completely valid source to appeal to when considering the meaning of Hebrew words in the text. I have a strong suspicion that modern Hebrew scholars will also agree with me that Genesis 1:1 says nothing about God creating the type of "time" I am talking about, though I haven't devoted the time to prove this.

Now if you think I have a tone of frustration, maybe some, but for the most part it doesn't faze me because I've been down this road too many times. It a recurring theme with those Christians who seem beyond convincing that they could even remotely be wrong, and we hardly ever get out of the gate because of the equivocation and strawmen surrounding what TIME is. So let's again deal with these. When I talk about time, I am talking about:

Time - The Progression of one moment to the next

For the sake of argument, I have played along some with the secular quantum, Eintseinian definitions of time, since even this version of time cannot be proven to have been created in Genesis 1:1, notwithstanding your less than compelling attempt to lean on "God created all things". God did not create any of His attributes, and if time is an attribute of God, then he did not create time either. I suppose in the future I should just stop entertaining equivocations of my position, because it often morphs into any variety of strawmen, in this case the notion I don't think God created all things, as you try to force me to argue against your version of time. If relativity is true and is a created property, this still doesn't prove that the definition of time I am referring to above was created.

Just to try to move this discussion forward, let me agree with you, for argument's sake, that God created your version of Eintseinian, Mislerian, 4th dimension time. He may very well have, but it doesn't establish that the type of time I am referring to was created (the passing of one moment to the next). So, Dave, please explain how time, as I have defined it above (and is one of the definitions in Websters), did not occur before God created the heavens and the earth. So to ask the question another way, show me how Genesis 1:1 establishes that God created "the progression of one moment to the next", and if so, what modality existed before Genesis 1:1.

I am at the point that, given your sensitivity and seeming propensity to read right past my arguments, that if you continue trying to pigeonhole me into your version of Genesis 1:1, then I see no value continuing with you on this. I know you agree that scripture should be used to interpret scripture, yet time and time again you've refused to discuss the scriptures I've presented, and instead complain about not wanting to go down rabbit trails. I have not avoided trying to tackle your arguments surrounding Genesis 1:1, other than walking away from the strawman aspect of it. There are already plenty of posters who have indicated either explicitly or implicitly that all you or anyone else have presented in Genesis 1:1 as it pertains to time and relativity is mostly a speculative argument. Please Dave, if you want to continue, tell the reader why the scripture I have presented is not a valid defense of my position. Since scripture, not Chuck Misler, Henry Morris, or secular scientists, should be used to interpret scripture, then please do me the courtesy of dealing with my scriptural objections.

I believe that God Himself exists inside AND outside of time, for HeÃ‚Â "IS".Ã‚Â The "I AM".Ã‚Â For He is existing in an eternal state and cannot be bound or limited by time, because He is uncreated and has neither beginning nor end.Ã‚Â We exist inside of time, because our lives can be measured from a beginning.

I cannot see it any other way because any other way would mean that God exists moment by moment from a beginning point, and is therefore not existing in an eternal state.

One would have to ask how much time elapsed before God started to make the world?Ã‚Â Which would then mean there was time, it was measurable and God had a beginning Himself.Ã‚Â This makes no sense to me.Ã‚Â I believe that God exists in eternity, but has created a beginning and therefore an end, which is measured in time.Ã‚Â I believe that time will give way to eternity when we pass from this life to the next.

Hi Bex,

I'm trying to emphasize a definition of time as merely the progression of one moment to the next. Since God is eternal, this process has been going on forever, and will continue to go on forever. Thus I can't see any logical contradictions.

Now God has, for us, provided a way for us to measure pockets of this progression, that may yield varying results based on other physical properties (relativity), but this doesn't stop this progression. He has created a beginning for us, but not an end, so there is no way to measure this since its open-ended. All this being said, when we pass into eternity, we know that one moment will continue to progress to the next, God told us this in Rev 8:1.

Now take my reference that god-outside-of-time traces back to Greek pagan philosophy. You have the same three options. You can dispute that the Greeks believed this (a losing proposition), you can chalk it up to coincidence (the most common position), or you can agree the Greeks came up with the idea first and it ended up creating a false theological position.

Fred,

First of all. I dispute your assertion that Ã¢â‚¬Å“God outside of time traces back to Greek pagan philosophy.Ã¢â‚¬Â A plain reading of GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Word shows that it traces back to Gen 1:1. God created all things, including time, so he must not be subject to time, therefore he is outside of time.

Second, I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t dispute that the Greeks believed that. What I dispute is that it has any relevance to the debate. In Gen 1:1 God tells us he created all things. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t dispute that it might so happen that millennia later that secular Greeks happened to stumble upon that as truth. (Would that todayÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s secular scientists and philosophers could do more stumbling onto GodsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ Word in the Bible.) But, where is the relevance to our discussion? You are merely wasting our time by continuing to try to press home an argument that has nothing to do with Gen 1:1, an argument that, in fact, recognizes the truth of Gen 1:1.

I have presented many scripture that god-outside-of-time is false theology, and then provided an "oh-by-the way the Greeks also believed this theology". Just because you take offense to this for the wrong reasons isn't going to make me stop making this argument.

What you havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t done is set the foundation for a correct understanding of those verses. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why I insist on returning to Gen 1:1 over and over again. See my example in the following post.

Now back to the meat of this debate, and something you are more than welcome to take offense to. You are doing the same thing that performedge has done, you are equivocating on what "time" is, Ã¢â‚¬Â¦

No. I am not. I am disagreeing with you.

HereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why. You are missing an important point in your definition of time: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Time Ã¢â‚¬â€œ The progression of one moment to the next.Ã¢â‚¬Â

That is a true, but incomplete, definition of time in temporal manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s time domain. Obviously, man cannot exit time, return to the past or see future time. He is limited by the temporal characteristics that God created for the space-time universe. But, God is not limited by his own creation. Is he?

You are taking a definition of time that limits man, and are expanding it to include God, thereby limiting God.

My definition of time: Ã¢â‚¬Å“Time Ã¢â‚¬â€œ The progression of one moment to the next in manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s temporal world, the space-time domain, created by God, accessible to God, but that which God is not subject to or bound by.Ã¢â‚¬Â

One of the things I would want the reader to take note in these debates, is not only who takes the plain meaning of scripture on this topic, but who also spends more time trying to bolster their argument with extra-Biblical sources.

Fred, please look at the plain meaning of these verses:

Ã¢â‚¬Å“In the beginning God created Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â (Gen 1:1), and, Ã¢â‚¬Å“all things were made by himÃ¢â‚¬Â John 1:3.

YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll notice there is no appeal to scientists, rabbis, philosophers Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ just plain Scripture.

I ask you again: What does God mean when he says Ã¢â‚¬Å“All?Ã¢â‚¬Â It doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t get any plainer than that.

Genesis 1:1 says nothing about God creating the type of "time" I am talking about, though I haven't devoted the time to prove this.

ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why we have to keep going back to Gen 1:1. You are denying, in effect, that in the beginning God created all things.

God did not create any of His attributes, and if time is an attribute of God, then he did not create time either.

Wow! Talk about a straw man. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve never heard anybody, anywhere, ever say that time is an attribute of God. Time is a property of the universe that God created.

Just to try to move this discussion forward, let me agree with you, for argument's sake, that God created your version of Eintseinian, Mislerian, 4th dimension time. He may very well have, but it doesn't establish that the type of time I am referring to was created (the passing of one moment to the next).

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not sure I understand what you are saying here. It sounds like you are saying, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Let me agree with you that God created time, but I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t believe that he created time.Ã¢â‚¬Â

So, Dave, please explain how time, as I have defined it above (and is one of the definitions in Websters), did not occur before God created the heavens and the earth.

OK. It is time for me to answer your question with scripture, keeping in mind that we are operating on your definition of time that applies only to temporal manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s existence in the space-time universe.

God tells us in 2Tim 1:9 and Titus 1:2, for example, that manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s time had a beginning.

2Tim 1:9 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,Ã¢â‚¬Â KJV

Titus 1:2 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;Ã¢â‚¬Â KJV

In all my KJV Bibles there is a margin note stating that the phrase should read Ã¢â‚¬Å“before time began.Ã¢â‚¬Â In other versions of the Bible, like the NIV, for example, the actual phrase Ã¢â‚¬Å“before the beginning of timeÃ¢â‚¬Â is used.

Clearly, GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s message to us is that he had a plan for us before the world Ã¢â‚¬â€œ before time -- even began. God had to have existed before that in order to have Ã¢â‚¬Å“saved, called,Ã¢â‚¬Â etc., before time, thus, he is outside of our time. How could it be otherwise?

So to ask the question another way, show me how Genesis 1:1 establishes that God created "the progression of one moment to the next", and if so, what modality existed before Genesis 1:1.

God created time because he created all things. What existed before the universal space-time? God, of course.

I am at the point that, given your sensitivity and seeming propensity to read right past my arguments, that if you continue trying to pigeonhole me into your version of Genesis 1:1, then I see no value continuing with you on this.

My version of Gen 1:1?

Again: Ã¢â‚¬Å“In the beginning God created Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â (Gen 1:1), and, Ã¢â‚¬Å“all things were made by himÃ¢â‚¬Â John 1:3.

Let me ask you. If Ã¢â‚¬Å“allÃ¢â‚¬Â doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean Ã¢â‚¬Å“all.Ã¢â‚¬Â Then what else didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t God create? Gravity? The Laws of Thermodynamics? Is there no limit to what you deny that God created? Or, is it just time that you deny God created? Are you just so stuck on God not creating time because it would be a devastating blow to your Open Theism theology?

Briefly Ã¢â‚¬Â¦

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d like to revisit your aquarium analogy. Following your own logic, I asked you, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ then tell me what activity occurred before, Ã¢â‚¬Å“In the beginning, God created Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬ÂÃ¢â‚¬Â

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m still interesting in knowing what God was doing prior to Ã¢â‚¬Å“In the beginning.Ã¢â‚¬Â

My answer to that question would be, as stated above, God was planning our salvation. Did that require temporal time for God to do that? No. In fact, God tells us specifically that he did it before time began.

This perfectly illustrates why, until we established a correct understanding of Gen 1:1, the debate cannot proceed into other scripture.

Gen 2:19 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof.Ã¢â‚¬Â

This is a straightforward passage when taken in the light of a correct understanding of Gen 1:1.

God gave Adam a task to name animals, and then saw, or observed, what Adam would name them. Nowhere in the passage does it state that God was surprised at the names that Adam gave the animals.

Did God know what Adam would name each animal? If you believe in GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s omniscience, then you have no problem understanding that to be true. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s implied by GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s all-knowing attribute, but it is not necessary to work that into this passage. God was merely relating how he was observing Adam performing a task that he had asked him to do.

ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the straightforward, plain reading of the text. No more, no less.

But, in the view of the person who believes that God resides only within manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s time domain and is subject to it so he cannot know the future, the text takes on all kinds of twisted meaning, a meaning that demeans and disempowers God.

That person says about Gen 2:19, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Aha! See? God has no clue what Adam is going to name the animals. HeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s sitting there, just waiting for each name to be called out, so he can be surprised. What does he know? He doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know the future, thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s for sure!Ã¢â‚¬Â

In this view, God can be surprised at each naming, learning something new with each naming, making him quite a bit less than the omniscient God that we know of from numerous Bible verses.

This Ã¢â‚¬Å“God learningÃ¢â‚¬Â view is not even germane to the point of this scripture passage, but Fred offered it up as an example of God having to wait to Ã¢â‚¬Å“seeÃ¢â‚¬Â what Adam was going to name the animals. IsnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t that stretching it a bit? Fred takes GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s sitting down with Adam watching him name the animals, and makes it into an assault on GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s omniscience.

Which view of God is more in line with GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s attribute of omniscience? Which view of God demotes God almost to being equal to, or maybe even subordinate to, Adam? Which view is the classic Christian view from the very beginning? Which view represents a relatively new "process theology" that has many more problems with God's Word than just his omniscience?

This is why, until we settle the matter of God creating time, and thus being outside of time and not subject to it, it is fruitless to go loggerheads with scripture verses that mention time, or God knowing, or God seeing or God learning.

ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why we have to keep going back to Gen 1:1. You are denying, in effect, that in the beginning God created all things.

No I'm not, unless you can prove that time as I have defined is a creatable thing, you have not even come close to proving it, you certainly haven't proven it with scripture.

Wow! Talk about a straw man. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve never heard anybody, anywhere, ever say that time is an attribute of God. Time is a property of the universe that God created.

Dave, a strawman is when you create a position that you opponent doesn't believe, then argue against it. I never attributed time as an attribute of God to your position, such an idea is pure speculation on my part, more than anything to convey that God does NOT create ALL things, he did not create love, nor did he create his mercy, or any other attribute of God. I have no idea of the modality of God as it pertains to "the passing of one moment to the next" before creation, all we have are opinions and speculations, as Ron rightly pointed out. God created the heavens and the earth, and all that is in them. That's what Genesis 1 plainly states. To say he created "the passing of one moment to the next" flies against both common sense, and all the verses in the rest of the Bible that argue against this.

OK. It is time for me to answer your question with scripture, keeping in mind that we are operating on your definition of time that applies only to temporal manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s existence in the space-time universe.

God tells us in 2Tim 1:9 and Titus 1:2, for example, that manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s time had a beginning.

2Tim 1:9 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,Ã¢â‚¬Â KJV

Titus 1:2 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;Ã¢â‚¬Â KJV

In all my KJV Bibles there is a margin note stating that the phrase should read Ã¢â‚¬Å“before time began.Ã¢â‚¬Â In other versions of the Bible, like the NIV, for example, the actual phrase Ã¢â‚¬Å“before the beginning of timeÃ¢â‚¬Â is used.

Tisk tisk Dave, then why don't you use the NIV? It's because I predict that you agree with me that the KJV is much closer to the Greek! Do you only use the NIV when it's convenient? Come on Dave, do you really think this is a compelling use of scripture? It does nothing at all, nothing to support that before the world began there wasn't the progression of one moment to the next!

Let me ask you. If Ã¢â‚¬Å“allÃ¢â‚¬Â doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean Ã¢â‚¬Å“all.Ã¢â‚¬Â Then what else didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t God create? Gravity? The Laws of Thermodynamics? Is there no limit to what you deny that God created?

Dave, I can't continue to address any implied or otherwise misrepresentations of my position, so any discussion on Genesis 1 between you and I is now pretty much over.

(regarding Genesis 2:19)Ã‚Â God was merely relating how he was observing Adam performing a task that he had asked him to do.

Thank you for finally addressing one of the verses I've raised. Your answer is not a plain rendering of the text, there are plenty of other ways God could have conveyed this to avoid confusion. But I need a followup statement you made to explain:

Which view of God is more in line with GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s attribute of omniscience? Which view of God demotes God almost to being equal to, or maybe even subordinate to, Adam?

Here you freely acknowledge that God outside-of-time make makes Him more powerful, more omniscient. Since you think this gives God more credibility, then why would God not write something like "God brought Adam the animals already knowing what he would name them". That would be a great way for God to show this great power and omniscience you are alluding to. At least grant me that this would have completely falsified my view! Will you do that much? Maybe I'll be fortunate enough that you would even go further, and admit that the doctored version I wrote above fits more with your version of things, and the actual text more fits with my version of things? I'm not holding my breath, but I'll let the reader decide who has the corner of the market on the plain language, especially as I produce more and more verses of these types that will cause problems for you.

I would like to ask why, in ALL of scripture, you can't provide a single verse that has such a precise and clear falsification of my view, such as my doctored view above would accomplish? Why would God allow an open door to the Open View? He thwarts and falsifies every false teaching under the sun, and this would have arguably been one of the easiest to falsify!

You raise a good and fair objection regarding God's omniscience. As I have stated before, I believe God knows all things knowable, things in the realm of reality. He knows an unrealized future because he knows what he will bring to pass, just as the Bible states. Christians argue that it brings more glory to God to be outside-of-time by Him either telling us everything because he has predestined everything (Calvinism), or for the free-willers that God knows because of a sort of crystal ball knowledge of the future (the more traditional view). Sure, that's pretty awesome, but it's in the eye of the beholder - I also see God carving out history, bringing things to pass, as at least as impressive, if not more so, a demonstration of His power.

This is why, until we settle the matter of God creating time, and thus being outside of time and not subject to it, it is fruitless to go loggerheads with scripture verses that mention time, or God knowing, or God seeing or God learning.

This is a pretty poor attitude to take toward scripture, since we should always use scripture to prove scripture. I'd hate to be an old earth creationist and come across you, since you might completely focus on Genesis 1 without going elsewhere, yet there are plenty of verses outside of Genesis 1 that corroborate its account as a literal 24-hour 6 day creation. For example, I might not hear about the death before sin problem, which is the number one reason I've heard over the years that convinced Old earthers to switch to YEC. I implore you to rethink your attitude, not necessarily here, but in future encounters you may have elsewhere. As for me, I'm moving on to all that scripture that happens to follow Genesis 1:1.

As I charge forward, I'm going to try documenting the verses against your traditional "god-outside-of-time" POV in a more concise manner. I hope you partake, but if you do not then you won't be the first! No offense would be taken, especially since your avoidance would only further serve my point to others.

I want to keep a running summary of scripture that argues against the God has a crystal ball view, that supports the position that the future is not reality until it occurs (which by extension means that God is not outside the "passing of one moment to the next"). Below are the scripture I have posted thus far since this discussion started in the Coffee Shop. I'll insert the scripture as I add them in chronological order.

------------------------

Gen 2:19 - God brings Adam animals to see what he will name them.

Gen 22:12 - God announces that he now knows of Abraham's fear of the Lord.

Psalms 27:5 - God will bring it to pass.

NEW ADDITION-> Isaiah 5:3-4 - God expected Israel to yield good fruit, but they disappointed.

Isaiah 28:21 - God will do His work, and bring it to pass.

Isaiah 38 - God tells Isaiah he is going to die. Hezekiah prays, and God changes the future and grants him 15 more years.

Jeremiah 19:5 - God tells us he never had in his mind that people would sacrifice their kids to the fire.

Jeremiah 32:35 - God repeats his statement in Jeremiah 19:5.

Ezekiel 24:14 - God has spoken it and will bring it to pass.

Revelation 8:1 - Time passes in heaven.

------------------------

The new verse I just added above is Isaiah 5:3-4:

Isa 5:1-4 "And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem and men of Judah, Judge, please, between Me and My vineyard. What more could have been done to My vineyard That I have not done in it? Why then, when I expected it to bring forth good grapes, Did it bring forth wild grapes?

Anyone care to explain why God would expect something that failed to transpire, if the future exists before it happens and He has a crystal ball?

Dave, I realize that God when he created the universe he introduced a time system that we, as created beings are subject to. But what exactly does it mean to say that God exists "outside of time"?

If God did something before creating the universe then is he not subject to time?

The very fact that God thinks, implys the passage of time. And we know that God has thoughts since:

"no one can know GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s thoughts except GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s own Spirit".

We also know that God created us in his image, having a spirit that is capable of thinking spiritual thoughts that are invisible to other spirits:

"No one can know a personÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s thoughts except that personÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s own spirit"

Obviously, as you point out, nothing would surprise God. But I cannot see anywhere in scripture that indicates the fact that God knows every single thought that we are going to think in advance. The only possible exception I can think of is Matthew 9:4 and Luke 9:47, but there is nothing in these verses that indicates that Jesus did anything more than recognize the thoughts of people in a general sense, much as you and I do.

I get the feeling in discussions like this that the general idea is that attributing God extreme forms of omnescience etc, is a way of giving praise to God, and that doing the opposite diminishes God, but is it wise to go beyond what is written?

I think Fred is correct in pointing out that doing so causes problems that makes it necessary to provide awkward explanations to certain verses in order to get them to "make sense". And how many times haven't we heard the question raised "If God knows everything in advance then why did he plant the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the garden when he knew in advance what was going to happen"?

Dave, quick question that I forgot to ask earlier. You said you had some evidence that aspects of the Open View can also be traced to the Greeks? I have never heard this and would like to see what you have. Thanks,

Dave, quick question that I forgot to ask earlier. You said you had some evidence that aspects of the Open View can also be traced to the Greeks? I have never heard this and would like to see what you have. Thanks,

Fred

Fred, I'll get to that later. Let's take care of other business first.

I've got the information here to post, and then I'm sending you an email.

Dave

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Hello everyone,

Somehow I missed the most glaringly obvious exposition of GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s ability to transcend time.

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve long been a student of the Book of Revelation, actually beginning to study it even before I became a born-again Christian. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve done many formal and informal studies of it.

Last night I was casually reading it to take a break from thinking about the Ã¢â‚¬Å“TimeÃ¢â‚¬Â debate, and a stunning Ã¢â‚¬Å“revelationÃ¢â‚¬Â just knocked me between the eyes. IsnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t God amazing, that when you give yourselves over to Him He gives you just what you need?

So, letÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s do a little study of the Book of Revelation.

Rev 1:1 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified [it] by his angel unto his servant John:Ã¢â‚¬Â

Rev 1:2 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“Who bare record of the word of God, and of the testimony of Jesus Christ, and of all things that he saw.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Here we have the first two verses in the final book of the Bible telling us that John is given the extreme privilege of being a witness to the unfolding of the future.

There is a lot of controversy about Revelation among those who take different views of the timing of the events Ã¢â‚¬â€œ post-millennialists, a-millennialists, and pre-millennialists. I take the pre-millennial view as the correct one.

I believe that God gives us the view in Revelation that the first chapter is Ã¢â‚¬Å“what was,Ã¢â‚¬Â the second through third chapters are Ã¢â‚¬Å“what is,Ã¢â‚¬Â and fourth chapter through the end of the book are what must Ã¢â‚¬Å“shortly come to pass.Ã¢â‚¬Â And that the book of Revelation is a recounting of the future 7 years of tribulation before Christ comes to reign on the Throne of David for 1,000 years.

Then Jesus gives John a greeting from his transcendent God:

Rev 1:4 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace [be] unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne;Ã¢â‚¬Â

IsnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t this God saying he is outside of time?

In Rev 1:8 Jesus repeats a theme that is throughout the Bible:

Ã¢â‚¬Å“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Even clearer, in John 8:58 Jesus said, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.Ã¢â‚¬Â

He what? He was? No. Ã¢â‚¬Å“I am.Ã¢â‚¬Â He is always in the past, present and future. There is no time restriction here. Transcendent of time. Outside of time.

So, to continue, John is in the spirit one day on the Isle of Patmos, and he hears a voice behind him saying, Ã¢â‚¬Å“I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book,Ã¢â‚¬Â Rev. 1:11. The speaker is, of course, Jesus Christ. He is telling John that he is going to see some things that he must write in a book.

John was so stunned by this encounter he fell at JesusÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ feet. But, Jesus reassured him, saying, Ã¢â‚¬Å“fear not.Ã¢â‚¬Â The point here is that John was not dreaming. This was something really happening to him.

Then Jesus repeated what John had already been instructed, and tells us how Revelation is to be laid out:

Rev 1:19 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“Write the things which thou hast seen, and the things which are, and the things which shall be hereafter;Ã¢â‚¬Â

Clearly, God wants John to record Ã¢â‚¬Å“all things that he sawÃ¢â‚¬Â of future events yet to take place. But, how can that be? How can God, much less a mortal man, watch future history unfold before it even happens? That can only happen if God is outside of time, able to transcend the past, the present and the future, and only if God in his supernatural power can take even a mortal man like John and place him outside of time as well.

So, John, after recording the message to the four churches in Chapters 2 and 3, finds himself doing something that no man has done before:

Rev 4:1 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“After this I looked, and, behold, a door [was] opened in heaven: and the first voice which I heard [was] as it were of a trumpet talking with me; which said, Come up hither, and I will shew thee things which must be hereafter.Ã¢â‚¬Â

John is actually physically transported into the Heavenly realm where he will join God to have a ringside seat to watch the future unfold before his eyes.

Thus begins the grandest adventure that a mortal man has ever been given the privilege to experience. He is transported outside of time, appearing at the throne of God himself, and is allowed to watch the events of the last seven years of the earth as we know it.

And, make no mistake. John really was there watching and experiencing it all. In every chapter from Chapter 4 on, throughout the rest of the book in fact, John writes, Ã¢â‚¬Å“I looked,Ã¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“I saw,Ã¢â‚¬Â Ã¢â‚¬Å“I heard,Ã¢â‚¬Â or Ã¢â‚¬Å“I beheld.Ã¢â‚¬Â

And itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s instructive that John was not merely seeing these events as in a dream. He was a partaker of many of the events as they took place, even interacting with some of the participants.

Rev 5:4 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ã¢â‚¬Â¦And I wept much, Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â

Rev 7:13-14 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“And one of the elders answered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him, Sir, thou knowest.Ã¢â‚¬Â

Rev 10:9-10 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“And I went unto the angel, and said unto him, Give me the little book. And he said unto me, Take [it], and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey And I took the little book out of the angel's hand, and ate it up; and it was in my mouth sweet as honey: and as soon as I had eaten it, my belly was bitter.Ã¢â‚¬Â

John was not only privileged to view the future as it was happening, he was actually participating in it!

Is there any question that the events of Revelation Chapters 4-22 will occur someday in the future exactly as we have been told by John?

In all honesty, there are those who think not, who take a different view of Revelation, and who believe that all of Revelation is purely allegorical, or that all the events have already taken place during past history.

But, taking God at his word, the events that John saw and participated in that were Ã¢â‚¬Âyet to comeÃ¢â‚¬Â he saw as they were taking place in the future Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ thus John was outside of our time domain.

So, I feel prompted to add a corollary to the Missler-Morris assertion that I mentioned in the OP of this thread:

Ã¢â‚¬Å“If you have a problem interpreting and understanding the last book of the Bible you will have a problem interpreting and understanding all the rest of the Bible.Ã¢â‚¬Â

I believe it is clearly Ã¢â‚¬Å“set in stoneÃ¢â‚¬Â that not only can God watch the future as if it was being played out on a TV screen in front of him, but he even has the power to allow a human, mortal man to do the same thing with him.

ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s why all of the Ã¢â‚¬Å“hundreds of versesÃ¢â‚¬Â that Fred can call up to Ã¢â‚¬Å“proveÃ¢â‚¬Â that God is limited in his omniscience must be read and interpreted with the understanding from the Book of Revelation that God can indeed see the future, and can in fact, reside in it and participate in it. Any other interpretation is agenda-driven in order to support an unorthodox view of Scripture.

Dave, I hope you don't take this the wrong way because I respect your view as a Christian, and personally I don't have anything against the idea that God has the kind of attributes you describe. I just can't see it in scripture. The verse where Jesus says "Before Abraham was, I am" is a reasonably strong argument, since it aludes to idea that there is a divine perspective in which God observes time. But unfortunately there is no verse pointing into the future where God says "I am", and even if it did, such a verse might only be used to illustrate God's unchanging nature. He is as we all know, the same yesterday, today and tomorrow, but does that mean that he is "outside of time"?

I also have difficulty accepting the idea that since God revealed to John what was "yet to come" means that hundreds of verses of scripture should be reinterpreted to mean something other than they actually say. Fred put forth, using the testimony of scripture itself, that God "brings things to pass". It doesn't make sense to me that God would need to bring things to pass, as far as some prophecy is concerned, but not when it comes to the book of Revelation.